Write about what?

There are no new stories. Today’s most popular books are built on the plots of stories that have existed for millennia. In the same manner today’s current personality assessments are built  on much older theories.  Sometime around 2400 years ago, the physician Hippocrates described his theory that human moods, emotions were caused by an excess or lack of basic body fluids. Too much blood and you became giddy and talkative, too little and you would become morose. Feeling lazy? Blame it on too much phlegm.  He probably borrowed the ideas from someone before him.

Although this was not a sound medical observation, the idea of four different personality types keeps reappearing.  And like artists using tempera paint (which comes from the same root word as temperament) people in the personality business keep painting four different factors, which they mix to obtain their spectrum of personalities.

Writers are in the personality business, because they create characters. So reviewing different variations of these four dimensions of personality can help you.  Basically, identify the major trait of your character, and find which other ones are likely to accompany it.

The four basic personalities according to Hippocrates:

Choleric –energetic, ambitious, aggressive, tyrannical.

Sanguine – charismatic, friendly, impulsive, self-indulgent.

Phlegmatic – observant, steady, calm, apathetic

Melancholic – independent, cautious, moody, depressed

In each case the list moves from the strengths, which we long for in the characters of our dreams, to the weaknesses. However, well-rounded character must have fsults. If you want to choose the strong points from more than one type, such as a character that is both energetic and charismatic, on the worse days this character will turn into a self-indulgent tyrant. But, then the tyrant can sometimes be tireless in attempts to accomplish great things. If you develop a wise character that is observant, calm and independent, when the problems are overwhelming the character may slip into suicidal thoughts and not care what happens to others. But the morose, depressed downer character may exhibit a streak of independence.

Finally, beware of basing your characters on any personality theories that only have positive traits. These are not true portraits of people and your characters will not seem plausible either.

Readers may be drawn to the impassioned, spirited, exciting and mercurial hero figure. In real life we often find of these  people over-emotional, high-strung, frenzied and hot-tempered. So this kind of protagonist needs a balancing factor. A good place to find the appropriate personality for the mentor or sidekick to assists your hero is in research on creativity in business. Creativity is no long the domain of eccentric inventors, impractical daydreamers, and those living in garrets on the edge of poverty. In the business community it has become a buzzword for bolstering a faltering company. But the wise sociologist realizes that creativity is strongly related to non-conformity. And, non-conformists rub many people the wrong way. The latest trend in innovation research tries to define the various creative styles that will support each other (and bolster the company’s bottom line). These are excellent resources to use as the basis of your characters.

For example, Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory describes Adaption and Innovation as styles of creativity. However, at close examination the different styles are related to levels of conformity/non-conformity.  This inventory scores people on a continuum ranging from working with the system to challenging the system. [1]

The Spontaneous approach is marked by freedom from constraint and traditions. It is an ADHD style that focuses on many goals at once, impatiently jumping from one thing to the other–the feeling approach to coming up with solutions to the major conflict in your story. (Consider the similarities with the ill-prepared character on a mission to right an injustice.)

The Conceptual approach is centered on formulating new ideas, different alternatives, innovative concepts, and creating an overall plan. This is the problem solving style of the thinking person. (Think of the highly intelligent, but eccentric private detective.)

The Normative approach requires putting new ideas into a familiar context, based on past experiences. People employing this approach need to know the consequences beforehand. This play-it-safe style is mostly conformist. These people follow rather than lead when it comes to original ideas, but these are the kind of people that end up in leadership positions. (For example, the police chief who just can’t see the possible answers that the private detective can in many mystery novels.)

The Methodical approach is not really creative at all but focused on proven solutions and creating order. However, a spontaneous or conceptual person people can become methodical and adopt a step-by-step procedure when it comes to testing their novel ideas. Or you can simply add a methodical sidekick with the detailed know-how to make the hero’s far out idea work.

Fahden’s & Namakkal’s research has led to profiles that identifies people as the Creator, who invents with the new idea, the Advancer who recognizes this far out idea as a possible solution, the Refiner who methodically figures out what the consequences are going to be, and finally the Executor who pays attention to all the details. [2] This group seems to work as well in producing new products in real life as it does in fiction for the elite criminals involved in a high-stakes heist or the core group intent on carrying out some covert activity.

No one is purely creative or purely uncreative, so no one fits completely into any category. Most people use all of these approaches at one time or the other when faced with the “major conflict,” but they show a definite preference of one type of approach. So feel free to have your protagonist switch their approach occasionally when it makes sense. In fact, this would be a good idea for all major characters, even your antagonist.

[1] Kirton, M.J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, pp. 622 – 629.

[2] Fahden, A. & Namakkal, S. (1995), C.A.R.E. Carlson Learning Company, pp. 8-9